Erik said: > That would be one way, but Why would you "have to" do it that way? Why > can't it be disproved by showing that the group that believes in god > is NOT below average?
Okay, so I should have said that the only way to disprove the Fool's position based on the characteristics of one person is to find a below average atheist. > Agreed, but again, if taken literally. I filled in the lines of her > argument and assumed she meant that there were many others in the > group like her and so the group was NOT below average. Am I being to > charitable in my interpretation of her meaning? I don't know about that. Even so, I still don't think that would disprove the Fool's assertion. In this case, There could be very many smart people like Debbi indeed and still the atheists could in principle all be all smarter than average. (There's also an effect along these lines caused by relative sizes of the atheist and non-atheist populations, which it seems to me is skewed towards non-atheists in the US.) > Clear enough. I take it you are talking about the assertion that the > fool's group is completely above average (literal interpretation of > his statement), which means that the remainder group must cross the > average so you could have some be above average but the group below > average. Yes. > According to the Prairie Home Companion, in Lake Wobegone, all the > children are above average. Aha. Thanks Julia, too. Rich, who hasn't noticed any clear separation in intelligence or education between atheists and non-atheists in his own experience, but must admit that he knows very few non-atheists in person. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
